Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31126240›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2019

Moving beyond 'safety' versus 'autonomy': a qualitative exploration of the ethics of using monitoring technologies in long-term dementia care.

Alex Hall, Christine Brown Wilson, Emma Stanmore, Chris Todd

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alex HallSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. alex.hall@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8849-744X
Christine Brown WilsonSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Lisburn Road, Belfast, UK.
Emma StanmoreSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
Chris ToddSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council (GB) MR/K500823/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of monitoring technologies (e.g. wearable or environmental sensors) in long-term care generates extensive ethical debate, primarily about their potential to enhance resident safety weighed against concerns about their impacts upon resident autonomy. There are a number of other ethical aspects which are far less debated, including questions about the monitoring of the workforce, and equality of access to technologies. In this paper, we explore the extent to which remote monitoring of the workforce, and equality of access to technologies, were seen to influence the implementation of monitoring technologies within long-term care facilities.

methodsAn embedded multiple-case study design was used with three dementia-specialist care facilities in England that had experience using a range of monitoring technologies. Data were collected through 175 h' observation of daily practice, semi-structured interviews with 36 staff, residents and relatives, and examination of organisational documentation and technology manufacturer literature. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.

resultsUse of technologies for workforce monitoring was understood in relation to the ethical obligations to fulfil a duty of care to residents. There was little recognition of any negative implications for the workforce, but staff were susceptible to rumours that technologies were being used for performance management even when this was not the case. There were questions about how far data collected by monitoring technologies could constitute 'evidence' of appropriate care delivery. Equality and access to technologies involved a need to compromise between generic designs that were not universally suitable, but were more affordable than bespoke designs. Contracts with suppliers imposed limitations on product choice.

conclusionsThere is an urgent need for greater consideration of the ethical and legal implications that remote technological monitoring might have upon workforce morale, recruitment and retention. Ensuring variety of technological design to facilitate equitable access for residents is financially extremely challenging. It is possible that considerations of equitable access are not deemed a priority due to the current generation of residents' low levels of technological familiarity and expectation. It might be overstated and unrealistic to view expensive technologies as the pinnacle of innovative practice in care homes.

Indexed as

Personal AutonomyQualitative ResearchAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDelivery of Health CareDementiaEnglandFemaleHumansLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryPatient SafetyYoung AdultAmbulatory monitoringAssistive technologyDementiaEthicsImplementationLong-term careQualitative researchSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID31126240
PMCPMC6534927
OpenAlexW2946025392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.